Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful" document

[Jeff Garzik]

On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 07:26:13PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> >Robert Hancock <hancockr@xxxxxxx> writes:
> >>You don't need volatile in that case, rmb() can be used.

> >rmb() invalidates all compiler assumptions, it can be much slower.

It does not invalidate /all/ assumptions.


> Yes, why would you use rmb() when a read of a volatile generates optimal 
> code?

Read of a volatile is guaranteed to generate the least optimal code.
That's what volatile does, guarantee no optimization of that particular
access.

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/